Why my mind is closing towards Capitalism

I follow your logic but, had the founding fathers wanted to change the model they could have. Instead, they chose to continue the economic model for
the new country. Of course that is just one example. You can't forget leaders like Mussolini and Pinochet that had no problem forcing capitalism at
gun point.

I think I know what your going to say, "that wasn't real capitalism". OK, but then why is that not a valid argument for those saying that USSR and
China were not real socialism? Obvious double standard.

You being content or not is the point when you champion one economic model over another.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter. I actually liked your post about greed being the downfall of socialism. Would have been more honest if you would
have said that it is also the downfall of capitalism. In the end you say that socialism ends up as communism or fascism.

Not true socialism ends in communism and capitalism turns into fascism. The terms are often used interchangeably but they are not the same. One
rejects private business and the other embraces it.

Anarchy? Seriously? You think socialism can come of anarchy? Anarchy breeds lawlessness and murder. Only a few (those with the most muscle and guns)
have rights, everyone else is a slave. Again, it only takes a few bad apples to run a muck in this system. Maybe in a cannabis-induced la la land
anarchy would work, but never as a real world solution. Please think this through before you advocate it again.

Disagree. Poverty and misery breeds lawlessness. Capitalism creates poverty everywhere it goes. Why is the crime rate so high in America? Why can it
not solve these things. This has nothing to do with human nature, but with the climate of inequality capitalism creates. From that point people become
criminals. I have nothing against criminals. What we call criminals, the people we put into jail, are nothing compared to the people we elect into
office. They are truly lawlessness

Originally posted by ProgressiveSlayer
Anarchy? Seriously? You think socialism can come of anarchy? Anarchy breeds lawlessness and murder.

Just to give you some perspective 'anarchy', as in the dictionary definition, is not the same as the political system of 'anarchism'. Anarchy
simply means no government, anarchism is an answer to no government. You can't just be against something, and not have something to replace it with.
That would be useless to anyone.

Anarchism is actually a very organized system, the term was only used to mean a stateless version of socialism, in opposition to the Marxists.
Instead of a centralized state, the workers would organize themselves through worker collectives, Anarcho-collectivists (communism), or by worker
controlled unions, Anarcho-Syndicalism (not the same as the unions we have now that are controlled by politicians). No top down authority.

He also pointed out that to be truly freedom socialism has to be stateless...

"Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality."

Sometime in the early 1800's the socialists split between those who supported a state system, Maxists/Leninists, and those that apposed the state who
started calling themselves anarchists. Anarchist was used in a derogatory state (like you use 'communist') up until they appropriated the term, but
it still held negative connotations in the press, so other terms were used such as 'Libertarian Socialism' (anarcho-socialism), 'Collectivism'
(anarcho-communism), 'Syndicalism' (Anarchist federations of worker unions). Bakunin and Marx particularly had a falling out, and Bakunin was thrown
out of the 'International' in 1872, he was out voted as anti-state side of the International was in the minority. People generally tend towards some
kind of authority because we've known nothing else.

Originally posted by dadgad
...
When I say that certain definitions have been distorted I am pretty convinced that I am correct here. For example electricuniverse states that
Socialism is corporations working together with governments. That is entirely incorrect, because that is fascism. And fascism is the world we live
in.

Oh boy, did you become somehow blind to even what wikipedia a LEFTWINGER source has to say about that?...

Who is entirely incorrect is you...not me...

BTW, the fascism you speak of that we live in was introduced by LEFTWINGERS... Or do you forget the fact that the Feds, as in the Federal Reserve,
was put in power by "PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS" under a "PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT" President Woodrow Wilson?... It was also Woodrow Wilson who funded the
IRS, with it's "PROGRESSIVE TAXES" as it exists today...

In his first term as President, Wilson persuaded a Democratic Congress to pass major progressive reforms. Historian John M. Cooper
argues that, in his first term, Wilson successfully pushed a legislative agenda that few presidents have equaled, and remained unmatched up until the
New Deal.[1] This agenda included the Federal Reserve Act, Federal Trade Commission Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Federal Farm Loan Act
and an income tax.
...

So you see, you sir are completely ignorant even of the history of your own nation, yet you want to claim the contrary?...

BTW, yes you are partially right, we are very close to a fascist state, which is a leftwing ideology...

Our economy is controlled by a CENTRAL BANK, which is the 5th plank of 10 of communism...

We have a "heavy progressive tax", which is another plank of communism...

The state has been slowly centralizing all power, and even nationalizing major companies like GM, which is another plank of communism...

Agriculture is also being nationalized and even the Feds are going after people with small vegetable gardens, because the Feds want to control all
food production, which is another plank of communism...

Not to mention that democrats have passed bills into law in which even children have to work for the government, for free, which again is another
plank of the communist manifesto...

So you see, EVEN YOU, subconciously, know that socialism/communism is nothing but a plague on mankind, and it is a fascist regime because the
corporations are part of the government, just like is possible in socialism...

Originally posted by dadgad
When you say Socialism will sink to the lowest possible denominator I have to disagree for several reasons. The first one being that these so called
socialist regimes were in fact deliberate distortions. Apart from the few years in Spain, the world has never been able to compare to anything, it has
not had a chance to develop. It was crushed immediately by powerful outside forces that were terrified of this movement, including Stalin a so called
socialist/communist. (hence why I say they were controlled by the same forces)
...

So now Stalin, and every socialist/communist state "wasn't developed" and you of course want your failed ideology to be tried again...

Sir, in EVERY socialist/communist nation the communist party CLAIMS to represent the people, just like socialism/communism says they must, but they
only want "the revolution" or "socialism" to keep existing...

Sir, even Marx said QUITE CLEARLY "peace is only achievable by the absence of all oposition". IN fact Marx, and Engels talk FREQUENTLY of FORCING the
socialist utopia...yet you claim this is not so...

You know, I remember when not too long ago the definition of "socialism" was among other things that " the state controls all means of production"...
But in the past few years LEFTWINGERS have rewritten history and rewritten the definition of socialism, thinking that everyone else has forgotten the
original definition...

Now the definition of socialism is almost exactly the same as the one for communism...

It used to be that in socialism the state owned the means of production, and in communism "supposedly" the workers own the means of production...

But you see, even in communism the workers are represented by "committes" of a few people who are the ones who hold a part of the power of the
communist party, and those committies have also bosses above them, which are the brass of the communist party and have more power than the committes
in every neighborhood...

This is why only a FEW PEOPLE have all power and control even in communism... Despite the claims to the contrary by people who HAVE NEVER experienced
or seen what socialism/communism does to a nation and it's people...

Disagree. Poverty and misery breeds lawlessness. Capitalism creates poverty everywhere it goes. Why is the crime rate so high in America? Why can it
not solve these things. This has nothing to do with human nature, but with the climate of inequality capitalism creates. From that point people become
criminals. I have nothing against criminals. What we call criminals, the people we put into jail, are nothing compared to the people we elect into
office. They are truly lawlessness

Why is the crime higher in europe than in the United States?...

You see sir, AGAIN you show nothing but ignorance in everything you want to discuss...

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.

The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:

The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in
Germany and France.
But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000
residents. In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.
...

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.
...

Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the
century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a
century tending to the " right ", a Fascist century.

Quotes are not mine. They are in the original.

The Fascist State organizes the nation, but it leaves the individual adequate elbow room. It has curtailed useless or harmful liberties while
preserving those which are essential. In such matters the individual cannot be the judge, but the State only.

Such a conception of life makes Fascism the resolute negation of the doctrine underlying so-called scientific and Marxian socialism, the doctrine
of historic materialism which would explain the history of mankind in terms of the class struggle and by changes in the processes and instruments of
production, to the exclusion of all else.

What is your point? The UK is not socialist. It does have a lot of poverty though, because of what Thatcher did in the 80's. It has the same
capitalist system the US and almost every country in the world has. The only difference is some are more liberal than others. Free health care is
not socialism.
It's correct term in the UK is National Health Service, the NHS!

Nationalism means it is ran by the nation, by the state. Socialism means it is ran by the workers.

I grew up in the UK, it's where I learned the history of the working class struggle in Europe. There is more anti-capitalist sentiment there than in
the US, because people are more aware of the reality of their own history that you don't see in America.

The capitalist system is why the UK has a class system to begin with. There is no working/middle/capitalist classes in socialism. Equality is not
created by divisions in class created by a hierarchical system.

I'll take it you haven't read the fact that even wikipedia admits that fascism is another branch of socialism...

Something you will find in EVERY branch of socialism, CENTRALIZATION, or consolidation of all power, and infraestructure to be held by a few, or even
by one person...

BTW, it is quite funny, but I read your ORIGINAL post, before you "edited it", and it I read the fact that in "fascist states" the state is so
paranoid that it remains vigilant of people, following and observing what people do, mostly for political reason, etc, etc, which is EXACTLY what
happens in socialist/communist nations...

Stop calling fascism a left wing system, that is just completely backwards.

The original political meanings of ‘left’ and ‘right’ have changed since their origin in the French estates general in 1789. There the
people sitting on the left could be viewed as more or less anti-statists with those on the right being state-interventionists of one kind or
another. In this interpretation of the pristine sense, libertarianism was clearly at the extreme left-wing.

Far Right - Fascism, a nationalist system whereby government, military and corporations, the state, has the ultimate authority. It supports private
ownership of the means of production capitalism. Not worker ownership, which for the millionth time is socialism.

Far Left - Anarchism/Libertarianism

Even in Marxism the state does not have ultimate authority, the workers do. The state is the servant of the people. Under fascism the stare has the
ultimate power, which was demonstrated by Hitler, Mussolini, Franco.

fas·cism
1. any ideology or movement inspired by Italian Fascism, such as German National Socialism; any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement
with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
I'll take it you haven't read the fact that even wikipedia admits that fascism is another branch of socialism...

So wikipedia is a better source then the person responsible for bringing fascism into the world? I can't believe you actually tried that.

BTW, it is quite funny, but I read your ORIGINAL post, before you "edited it", and it I read the fact that in "fascist states" the state is so
paranoid that it remains vigilant of people, following and observing what people do, mostly for political reason, etc, etc, which is EXACTLY what
happens in socialist/communist nations...

I edited that because it was a a run on from a previous idea that didn't really jive with the last paragraph.

Originally posted by ANOK
..
I grew up in the UK, it's where I learned the history of the working class struggle in Europe. There is more anti-capitalist sentiment there than in
the US, because people are more aware of the reality of their own history that you don't see in America.

The UK is VERY leftwing, not to mention that leftwingers are always saying that the United States should follow suit of what the UK does, such as in
national healthcare...

BTW, The United States is where most people who have escaped socialist/communist dictatorships have gone after escaping such dictatorships. It is
not the UK, and what you have read, I am sure, is nothing more than the twisting of the truth by other socialists who like you want to implement
socialism/communism worlwide...

You are not more aware of the reality of socialism/communism than Americans. In fact you are less aware, just like in a majority of European nations,
except the few which actually lived and experienced socialism/communism and learned from past mistakes.

Germany of course hasn't learned it's lesson...

Originally posted by ANOK
The capitalist system is why the UK has a class system to begin with. There is no working/middle/capitalist classes in socialism. Equality is not
created by divisions in class created by a hierarchical system.

Sir, you have no idea of what exists in socialism/communism... You only BELIEVE you know because you READ what another socialist/communist wants you
to believe...

Originally posted by JimmyNeutron
Hmmm... I believe your argument has been refuted and the onus is on you to respond. And when someone says socialism is a lie, they're not necessarily
calling you a liar... Deceived, yes... Naive in championing a failed system, yes.

Hmm I believe you have no argument to begin with.

You wouldn't recognize a real debate if it slapped you in the face so I'm not surprised you have this opinion...

You are not arguing from a true historical perspective, but from the propaganda of the last 60 years.

You so conveniently ignore the history that has been presented that one can only come to the conclusion you are not interested in an actual exchange
of ideas.

Socialism as a concept is flawed at the core and has historically failed. Let me make this absolutely plain - WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL CHOOSES TO GO
AGAINST THE COLLECTIVE'S WILL, THE COLLECTIVE IS FACED WITH A CHOICE THAT HAS ONLY TWO OPTIONS. IT CAN CHOOSE TO OVERRIDE THE INDIVIDUAL, IN WHICH
CASE YOU ARE NO LONGER A SOCIALIST COLLECTIVE, OR YOU CAN ALLOW THE INDIVIDUAL THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE, AT WHICH POINT YOU ARE ALSO NO LONGER A
SOCIALIST COLLECTIVE. THERE IS NO INTERMEDIATE CHOICE.

None of the propaganda you have pointed to addresses this conundrum.

So unless you can clearly refute this in your own words you have absolutely no business spouting socialist cr@p. AND BTW - You have NOT answered this
in any of your earlier threads, nor has any other socialist leaning person posting in this thread. So don't even go there.

Put up or shut up...

We are not the ones who are naive. You haven't presented anything that refutes the history we have shown, with many historical quotes.

ROFLMAO

All you can do is claim it's lies, with no evidence.

In the context of this thread, "it's" can encompass a lot of things. Let's be a little more specific about what you claim I'm lying about. Blanket
global statements are easy to make, but ultimately are meaningless.

Can't you see that TPTB in those countries were lying to their people in order to control them? Why would they NOT do that?

Every government does that... And my point has been and continues to be that socialism is absolutely no different as shown by the logical conundrum
outlined above - therefore it is not the utopian dream YOU think it is. And there we come back to me calling anyone who says otherwise a moron,
ignorant, or dishonest. You actually seem sincere and you don't come across as a moron. That leaves only one option.

****This was worded more strongly than I intended after I reread it. My thought was poorly conveyed and I apologize, it was not meant as a slam even
though I would have taken it that way if I was the recipient of it.****

How is it that you and others here can see socialists as misguided idealists and then you say 'The free market', how deluded and misguided is
that?

The East India company saw an opportunity. They moved in and CONTROLED the production. They MONOPALISED the market and set the prices. They paid as
little wage to the workforce as possible and extracted the maximum profit for a few. Where is that not capitalism? Where was the free market?

We see this today in every market. There is no such thing as 'the free market' and to claim otherwise is a blinkered view to allow you to take the
high ground which makes you no better than those you argue against.

One of the few things we seem to agree on...

As petrus4 has noted, it really doesn't matter which system is in place, they all devolve into self interested entities that think nothing of
sacrificing innocent people in furtherance of a twisted agenda.

Pure socialism or capitalism is impossible in the real world. Human nature, or at least the really questionable humans with the psychopathic natures,
will always corrupt them.

Where I take great umbrance, is when people like ANAK blindly promote a theoretical system as the panacea for all that ails humanity. They gloss over
the issues in their logic and make blatantly false assumptions about human nature. And when confronted with the simple logical flaws in their
argument, they retreat into saying things like - "read the whole thread", "All of these issues have already been explained away", "pay no
attention to the man behind the curtain..."

To be fair, those refuting people like ANAK are not guiltless either.

You are really spewing nonsense. Anok has simply done his/her homework better then you did and that frustrates you. He (or she?) is the most patient
and polite poster I've ever seen. In any case, Anok hasn't really been promoting anything up until now really. Mostly all he/she (lol) did/does/do
was/is (omg) clear up historical fallacies and expose capitalism for the disgusting monstrosity it is.
And I'm proud to join him/her.

ANOK are you a MAN or a WOMAN?

edit on 4-2-2012 by dadgad because: (no reason given)

Well, now we're back to disagreeing.

I am in no way frustrated or angry. You have failed to make your point to anyone but people who already think
like you. That is not my problem, it is yours.

I will stop "spewing nonsense" when you, ANOK, or your other comrades:
1) show me a real world sustained system that has implemented your theoretical social construct
2) refute the logical fallacy of sustained socialism as a system in your own words.

Ground rules:
Your refutation CANNOT make the statement that this has all been taken care of in previous posts in this thread, because, frankly it hasn't.
No personal attacks about how dense you think someone is.

So wikipedia is a better source then the person responsible for bringing fascism into the world. I can't believe you actually tried that.

Many dictators thought that they were doing what was best for their nation, even though they were doing the contrary...

Originally posted by daskakik
I edited that because it was a a run on from a previous idea that didn't really jive with the last paragraph.

edit on 4-2-2012 by daskakik
because: (no reason given)

Like I said, funny that description sounded exactly like what happens in socialist/communist dictatorships...

BTW, can you tell me who said the following quotes?...

"If the bourgeoisie think they will find lightning conductors in us they are the more deceived; we must start work at once .... We
want to accustom the working class to real and effectual leadership".

or...

"Therefore I desire that this assembly shall accept the revindication of national trades unionism"

BTW, can you also tell us to what party did Mussolini belong to for most of his life before being in power? And I am not talking about him being a
leader in the socialist party...oops I said which party he belonged to...

Let's read some thoughts from Mussolini before he got into power...

"The Socialist party reaffirms its eternal faith in the future of the Workers' International, destined to bloom again,
greater and stronger, from the blood and conflagration of peoples. It is in the name of the International and of Socialism that we invite you,
proletarians of Italy, to uphold your unshakeable opposition to war".

I follow your logic but, had the founding fathers wanted to change the model they could have.

I'm not arguing that... You claimed it was forced at the point of a gun. I just called BS on that.

Of course that is just one example. You can't forget leaders like Mussolini and Pinochet that had no problem forcing capitalism at gun point.

By your own earlier admission Mussolini implemented fascism. I can't remember about Pinochet so won't even address it.

I think I know what your going to say, "that wasn't real capitalism". OK, but then why is that not a valid argument for those saying that USSR and
China were not real socialism? Obvious double standard.

Actually, I agree with you... They actually never claim to be socialist (ignoring of course the socialist in USSR). They both claim to be communist
and don't pretend to be other than that. Communism is the logical end to a socialist beginning (and I can already hear the socialist masses rising up
to call me a capitalist pig/liar/propagandist).

You being content or not is the point when you champion one economic model over another.

Then why on earth did you bring it up??? Not offended, just asking...

Anyway, it doesn't really matter. I actually liked your post about greed being the downfall of socialism. Would have been more honest if you would
have said that it is also the downfall of capitalism.

Thank you... Sorry for the one sided part of the argument but I think it is pretty clearly the downfall of capitalism. I just didn't state it.

In the end you say that socialism ends up as communism or fascism.
Not true socialism ends in communism and capitalism turns into fascism. The terms are often used interchangeably but they are not the same. One
rejects private business and the other embraces it.

You are absolutely correct (with the exception of using the statement that fascism embraces private business)... I didn't try to mix my metaphors,
but sometimes it happens... I'll try to keep the ideological lineages clearer for future posts.

Im going to use your argument. You don't live in the UK so you don't know what it's like in the UK. I live in the UK so I know. I know because I
lived it. So following up from that, it's not very left wing, at this particular time we have conservative government who are cutting every public
institution they run. Before that we had Blair who wasn't left wing even though he was "labour" and before Blair we had Thatcher. Who helped bring
down the pseudo-socialist USSR, she was very conservative.

It's hilarious that you're arguing history when you know nothing about history. What people say is different to what people do. When the fascists
hi-jack the socialist terms etc it's to gain support from the workers. Please, read a book. Don't use wikipedia. Educate yourself, please.

Disagree. Poverty and misery breeds lawlessness. Capitalism creates poverty everywhere it goes. Why is the crime rate so high in America? Why can it
not solve these things. This has nothing to do with human nature, but with the climate of inequality capitalism creates. From that point people become
criminals. I have nothing against criminals. What we call criminals, the people we put into jail, are nothing compared to the people we elect into
office. They are truly lawlessness

You have made huge assertions about the relationship between crime, poverty, and capitalism in the U.S. This is a huge topic that includes, among
other things the overwhelming evidence that the social welfare system championed by liberal democrats does the exact opposite of bringing people out
of poverty and misery. It perpetuates a problem and mindset that breeds crime. This has nothing to do with capitalism per se. It's a big topic and
can't adequately be addressed in a meaningful fashion in this or any other thread.

BTW: I agree about the people we put into office being more criminal than many of the people we put behind bars.

Originally posted by ProgressiveSlayer
Anarchy? Seriously? You think socialism can come of anarchy? Anarchy breeds lawlessness and murder.

Just to give you some perspective 'anarchy', as in the dictionary definition, is not the same as the political system of 'anarchism'.
Anarchy simply means no government, anarchism is an answer to no government. You can't just be against something, and not have something to replace
it with. That would be useless to anyone.

Anarchism is actually a very organized system, the term was only used to mean a stateless version of socialism, in opposition to the Marxists.
Instead of a centralized state, the workers would organize themselves through worker collectives, Anarcho-collectivists (communism), or by worker
controlled unions, Anarcho-Syndicalism (not the same as the unions we have now that are controlled by politicians). No top down authority.

He also pointed out that to be truly freedom socialism has to be stateless...

"Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality."

Sometime in the early 1800's the socialists split between those who supported a state system, Maxists/Leninists, and those that apposed the state who
started calling themselves anarchists. Anarchist was used in a derogatory state (like you use 'communist') up until they appropriated the term, but
it still held negative connotations in the press, so other terms were used such as 'Libertarian Socialism' (anarcho-socialism), 'Collectivism'
(anarcho-communism), 'Syndicalism' (Anarchist federations of worker unions). Bakunin and Marx particularly had a falling out, and Bakunin was
thrown out of the 'International' in 1872, he was out voted as anti-state side of the International was in the minority. People generally tend
towards some kind of authority because we've known nothing else.

Originally posted by Tea4One
...
It's hilarious that you're arguing history when you know nothing about history. What people say is different to what people do. When the fascists
hi-jack the socialist terms etc it's to gain support from the workers. Please, read a book. Don't use wikipedia. Educate yourself, please.

I never said that the UK was entirely socialist, or communist... You need to learn to read and comprehend what people are saying.

Compared to what the U.S. was 10 years ago, the UK has been leftwing, or leaning to the left...

BTW, I have not only read books, I lived life, and I have experienced what you HAVE NOT...

I have lived and experienced what socialism/communism does. That fact is not going to change no matter how many times YOU wish to claim that Cuba has
never been socialist/communist...

I am probably more educated than you are. I speak and write in three languages, and understand and can hold a simple conversation in 2 more. I have
attented and graduated from 2 different college, and attended school in three different nations. I have experienced life in Cuba, Spain/Portugal, and
in the United States up to the border with Canada.

As a former Aircrew/AW in the U.S. Navy I have seen, done, experienced and learned things that you probably never will.

Before you claim that somebody has had no education, you better make sure you know what you are talking about before you are being shown to be not
only ignorant, but arrogant.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.